US Supreme Court Justices get lavish gifts; Raise bar for bribery prosecutions(ohiocapitaljournal.com)
ohiocapitaljournal.com
US Supreme Court Justices get lavish gifts; Raise bar for bribery prosecutions
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023/04/26/u-s-supreme-court-justices-take-lavish-gifts-then-raise-the-bar-for-bribery-prosecutions/
207 comments
You are taking crazy pills if you think you can find a majority in the House to impeach a conservative supreme court justice when there is a democrat in the White House. Holding onto power is all that matters, optics be dammed. These are the same people who refused to give Merrick Garland a vote because it was "too close to the election" 8 months away, then a mere 4 years later rammed through Amy Coney Barrett a week before the election.
Of course, it's all Realpolitik.
The US system of governance at this point is such a failure for real democratic rule. It's devolved into a two-party system, and for some reason we grant whichever party happens to be in power the ability to appoint party apparatchiks to vacancies on the Supreme Court. These people then rule until death, when they are replaced in the same manner.
This being the framework, there is never any structural incentive to do anything but convince voters that your opponent is a monster, so you can retain power. Good governance is not rewarded, bad behavior is not punished - we may only rely on the questionable morality of the elected officials to "do the right thing," since they cannot be held accountable.
The US system of governance at this point is such a failure for real democratic rule. It's devolved into a two-party system, and for some reason we grant whichever party happens to be in power the ability to appoint party apparatchiks to vacancies on the Supreme Court. These people then rule until death, when they are replaced in the same manner.
This being the framework, there is never any structural incentive to do anything but convince voters that your opponent is a monster, so you can retain power. Good governance is not rewarded, bad behavior is not punished - we may only rely on the questionable morality of the elected officials to "do the right thing," since they cannot be held accountable.
good governance is rewarded by winning elections. economy is still the no1. issue for the median voter
spacephysics(3)
The Garland/Barrett shenanigans were at least strategic. Kavanaugh was even worse in my opinion. There was nothing special about that man. They could have easily dumped him as soon as the credible accusation against him came out. There are plenty of other judges with similar ideology and opinions that could have replaced him and provided the exact same impact on the court. There was no strategic reason to stick by him. The only reason was to prove a point about not caring about these accusations.
The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.
The only way that any more than a couple Republicans vote to remove Thomas or Gorsuch is if they see an opportunity to replace an older conservative justice with a younger conservative justice.
Forget the rape accusation, I don't understand how his behavior at the review didn't get him disqualified.
Just the unhinged rants about beer and clinton alone were shocking.
And I can't "prove" this, but he straight up lied about those definitions like "devil's triangle", "boofing", etc. Those terms are extremely common, have well defined definitions and seemed like they were used in those contexts (parties). No doubt in my mind he lied about that. If he lies about simple stuff like that then God knows how much worse it can get.
Just the unhinged rants about beer and clinton alone were shocking.
And I can't "prove" this, but he straight up lied about those definitions like "devil's triangle", "boofing", etc. Those terms are extremely common, have well defined definitions and seemed like they were used in those contexts (parties). No doubt in my mind he lied about that. If he lies about simple stuff like that then God knows how much worse it can get.
Your comment reminds me of a quote from the movie Charlie Wilson's War:
"Well if anyone asks what the hell I'm doing on the ethics committee we'll just tell them I like chasing women and drinking whisky and the Speaker felt we were underrepresented."
In other words, even people who like to party deserve representation in government.
And as for lying about "devil's triangle", apparently several classmates from both Georgetown Prep and Boston College have confirmed his definition:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/georgetown-prep-devi...
"Well if anyone asks what the hell I'm doing on the ethics committee we'll just tell them I like chasing women and drinking whisky and the Speaker felt we were underrepresented."
In other words, even people who like to party deserve representation in government.
And as for lying about "devil's triangle", apparently several classmates from both Georgetown Prep and Boston College have confirmed his definition:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/georgetown-prep-devi...
Here's the other thing I don't really get about these conservative types though. To a man, they claim that their Christian faith is extremely important to them. Like any good Catholic child, I was compelled to study the bible and while I took very little interest in it, my impression was that that sort of behavior was considered sinful and something one should seek to avoid and atone for if you should engage in sins involving bed and bottle. Things like this are why I've been an atheist from a single-digit age; I don't know much about the divine, but it doesn't seem like the people who claim to believe this stuff actually believe it either.
> And as for lying about "devil's triangle", apparently several classmates have confirmed his definition:
I am not going to debate this. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that anything can be debated, and with so many moving parts here, it's very easy to muddy the waters.
As an example, you linked an article where you chose to highlight friends of kavanaugh, impartial members, backing his claims and ignoring that others such as his roomate disagreed with those claims.
I am not going to debate this. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that anything can be debated, and with so many moving parts here, it's very easy to muddy the waters.
As an example, you linked an article where you chose to highlight friends of kavanaugh, impartial members, backing his claims and ignoring that others such as his roomate disagreed with those claims.
If Kavanaugh is telling the truth, and "devil's triangle" is a drinking game his friends invented, who but his friends would know about it?
Of course you're free to believe whatever you want, but if you aren't willing to discuss it, why did you even bring it up here?
Of course you're free to believe whatever you want, but if you aren't willing to discuss it, why did you even bring it up here?
> There was no strategic reason to stick by him.
Leverage, pure and simple. He is absolutely beholden to them because they can ruin his career and life by turning on him at any wrong move by...just...telling the truth.
Leverage, pure and simple. He is absolutely beholden to them because they can ruin his career and life by turning on him at any wrong move by...just...telling the truth.
I don't find Kavanaugh a particularly great legal mind, but your definition of credible accusation and mine are very different.
Fine, I'll bite. What wasn't credible about the accusation?
I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation. Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans? They were even more credible and provided only a minor delay in his appointment. If you want that sort of behavior to matter you need to elect better representatives.
>I'd guess it would be a complaint about the age of the accusation.
Anyone who knows anything about sexual assault would dismiss this as a serious threat to the credibility of the accusation. There was no reason for her to publicly make the accusation earlier. There is documentation of her privately making the accusation years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
>Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans?
The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations.
Anyone who knows anything about sexual assault would dismiss this as a serious threat to the credibility of the accusation. There was no reason for her to publicly make the accusation earlier. There is documentation of her privately making the accusation years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
>Veteran watchers of the court know that those sort of accusations aren't a serious impediment to confirmation however. Who can forget Clarence Thomas's Coke cans?
The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations.
> The hope was that society progressed in those nearly 30 years between the two nominations.
Society yes, Congress no. Many of the same people are still in there.
Society yes, Congress no. Many of the same people are still in there.
We need a different process, and no, I don't know what. But the current system is electing people based on sound-bites and posturing. The results, which are terrible, speak for themselves.
- The accuser's story had a number of missing (and, IIRC, contradictory) details
- There were no corroborating witnesses
- Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened
- There were no corroborating witnesses
- Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened
>- The accuser's story had a number of missing (and, IIRC, contradictory) details
No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years.
>- There were no corroborating witnesses
What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
>- Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened
A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years.
>- There were no corroborating witnesses
What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
>- Kavanaugh's own personal calendar from the year in question has no entries for the party at which the assault allegedly happened
A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
> No one's memory is perfect after nearly 40 years.
Indeed! Which is one of the reasons why we should question her accusation! How can we be sure she even accurately remembers who committed the assault? It might very well have been that she was assaulted, but by someone else. It could also be that it was Kavanaugh, but the interaction played out differently that she remembers.
> What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
She named witnesses to the actual event (or at least the party at which it took place) and none of them corroborated her story. They wouldn't have even been implicating themselves in the assault.
As I recall, she did talk about the incident years after it happened (long enough for details to have become muddled) but as I recall she didn't name Kavanaugh until after his nomination.
> A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
Kavanaugh kept a fairly detailed social calendar. In conjunction with the fact that none of the other supposed attendees to this party remembers it happening, significantly undermines credibility of the accusation.
Indeed! Which is one of the reasons why we should question her accusation! How can we be sure she even accurately remembers who committed the assault? It might very well have been that she was assaulted, but by someone else. It could also be that it was Kavanaugh, but the interaction played out differently that she remembers.
> What witnesses do you expect? The direct witnesses would have been implicating themselves. There were witnesses and evidence that showed she talked about these accusations years before Kavanaugh's nomination.
She named witnesses to the actual event (or at least the party at which it took place) and none of them corroborated her story. They wouldn't have even been implicating themselves in the assault.
As I recall, she did talk about the incident years after it happened (long enough for details to have become muddled) but as I recall she didn't name Kavanaugh until after his nomination.
> A teenage not documenting their illicit behavior is a rather weak argument that they never participated in said illicit behavior.
Kavanaugh kept a fairly detailed social calendar. In conjunction with the fact that none of the other supposed attendees to this party remembers it happening, significantly undermines credibility of the accusation.
> This is acceptable conduct?
Sure. I think ProPublica is reporting an angle here that can't be proven that Harlan Crow is attempting influence peddling or trying to put cash in the pocket of Clarence Thomas illegally. This doesn't look like a corruption case. The situation is somewhat reasonable and Thomas might have profited by 1/3 of the ~$130,000 house that he inherited which is not really a big deal.
It should have been reported, yes, absolutely. But I think this is fairly mundane.
I also think it's worth pointing out that Justice Ginsburg received a $1M award from Russian oligarchs[1][2]. She also received a trip to Israel[3] from an Israeli billionaire. I suppose if I were a ProPublica journalist I would say she was lavished with a private arrangement in Israel by a foreign billionaire. These are probably also mundane, I don't think she was corrupted by foreign influences.
It's a good question of whether all of this is appropriate, I don't know. But ProPublica is not exactly an unbiased reporter in my opinion. Being donor funded probably makes one even more susceptible to political bias than corporate media imo.
[1]: https://www.genesisprize.org/honorees/lifetime-achievement-a...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Prize
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/opinion/editorials/claren...
Sure. I think ProPublica is reporting an angle here that can't be proven that Harlan Crow is attempting influence peddling or trying to put cash in the pocket of Clarence Thomas illegally. This doesn't look like a corruption case. The situation is somewhat reasonable and Thomas might have profited by 1/3 of the ~$130,000 house that he inherited which is not really a big deal.
It should have been reported, yes, absolutely. But I think this is fairly mundane.
I also think it's worth pointing out that Justice Ginsburg received a $1M award from Russian oligarchs[1][2]. She also received a trip to Israel[3] from an Israeli billionaire. I suppose if I were a ProPublica journalist I would say she was lavished with a private arrangement in Israel by a foreign billionaire. These are probably also mundane, I don't think she was corrupted by foreign influences.
It's a good question of whether all of this is appropriate, I don't know. But ProPublica is not exactly an unbiased reporter in my opinion. Being donor funded probably makes one even more susceptible to political bias than corporate media imo.
[1]: https://www.genesisprize.org/honorees/lifetime-achievement-a...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Prize
[3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/14/opinion/editorials/claren...
You should read this before jumping to the conclusion that this is an outrage.
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...
Knowing how much home renovations cost, why would a megadonor stop at “tens of thousands of dollars”? Can you really buy a vote for that little?
Apparently yes. It's always surprising how cheaply our politicians have been bought.
The governor of Illinois tried to sell Obama’s senate seat for bargain bin prices.
He bought her house for almost $200k, spent tens of thousands of dollars on improvements, bought the house next door with the loud annoying neighbors and tore it down, bought two more houses on the street, fixed them up and sold them and doesn’t charge her rent to live there… basically gentrified her street.
He genteified *his street. He owns her home - at least on paper.
Always remember that the vote buying process is more about guaranteeing further alignment, instead of straight out buying. I can't imagine, for instance, Kagan receiving similar gifts, from similar donors, to make her vote with Thomas. I also don't think that some left wing billionaire could throw a million or two at Thomas and suddenly turn him into a swing voter.
High brow political corruption everywhere is more about those small, marginal adjustments, which also lead to less obvious quid pro quo. It's not that your buddy renovated your house, so you pick his company in a government bid worth a few hundred million: He becomes your buddy first, and gives you smaller gifts, and when you are adequately aligned, bigger gifts keep getting exchanged.
This is what makes the actual corruption always seem very cheap: It was never that huge a push, and the long term social component is always far more important than just the money.
High brow political corruption everywhere is more about those small, marginal adjustments, which also lead to less obvious quid pro quo. It's not that your buddy renovated your house, so you pick his company in a government bid worth a few hundred million: He becomes your buddy first, and gives you smaller gifts, and when you are adequately aligned, bigger gifts keep getting exchanged.
This is what makes the actual corruption always seem very cheap: It was never that huge a push, and the long term social component is always far more important than just the money.
The fact that all 9 justices pretty much agreed that this is a non-issue speaks volumes. Justices are above the law and play by different rules.
A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want.
A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want.
At times like these, it's useful to remember that the most common Supreme Court ruling is 9–0: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/23/trey-wingo...
This actually isn't true anymore: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-con...
Oof, that is… disturbing.
I've had to help my spouse fill out a California Form 700; if you need to fill out those annually, you're telling people not to give you gifts at all, nor would you ever consider investing outside of diversified mutual funds, because the paperwork burden is too high. In theory, roughly equal gifts between friends is fine, but easier to just not accept any gifts.
But Federal level elected officials get a pass. And apparently appointed (supreme) court judges, too.
But Federal level elected officials get a pass. And apparently appointed (supreme) court judges, too.
> The fact that all 9 justices pretty much agreed that this is a non-issue speaks volumes. Justices are above the law and play by different rules.
Citation?
There are examples of various judges accepting trips and gifts, but some of them REALLY stand out in the number and value.
I agree that it appears that none of them have really rocked the boat with external pressure, but the court has been a very insular institution. We don't know how much they've talked about it amongst themselves.
Citation?
There are examples of various judges accepting trips and gifts, but some of them REALLY stand out in the number and value.
I agree that it appears that none of them have really rocked the boat with external pressure, but the court has been a very insular institution. We don't know how much they've talked about it amongst themselves.
Well, we may not have picked up on the extent of the trips/gifts and other kickbacks. Could be they're all benefiting a ton, and we just don't know it (yet...?).
It's in the article from this thread.
Their is also a quote from the late RBG comparing efforts to stop this to some sort of stalinism.
Either way, what is absolutely important is that any enforcement is absolute and not selective / at the discretion of a prosecutor. There is no unbiased person when it comes to potentially shifting the balance of power of the SCOTUS. We can't only be shining a spotlight on justices from one party.
Their is also a quote from the late RBG comparing efforts to stop this to some sort of stalinism.
Either way, what is absolutely important is that any enforcement is absolute and not selective / at the discretion of a prosecutor. There is no unbiased person when it comes to potentially shifting the balance of power of the SCOTUS. We can't only be shining a spotlight on justices from one party.
Gotta get a case like this to the Supreme Court I guess
Definitely feels like we're in a "who watches the watchers" situation here. I know that theoretically Congress can make laws to set limits on the SC, but the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification.
And with 100+ years of precedence (much of which is contradictory or doesn't mesh well with modern morals or the current condition of the US (high technology, fewer physical workers, globalization, etc)), they have a lot of potential justifications at their fingertips.
And with 100+ years of precedence (much of which is contradictory or doesn't mesh well with modern morals or the current condition of the US (high technology, fewer physical workers, globalization, etc)), they have a lot of potential justifications at their fingertips.
Additionally federal judges, including supreme court justices, are theoretically subject to the check of impeachment and conviction by the Senate. However, in practice, only one supreme court justice[1] has ever been impeached, and even then was acquitted.
Historically, federal judges have a 50% conviction rate following impeachment. The proximal causes of such a low impeachment rate, and whether they sufficiently address the current behavior of our supreme court justices is obviously up for debate.
1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached
Historically, federal judges have a 50% conviction rate following impeachment. The proximal causes of such a low impeachment rate, and whether they sufficiently address the current behavior of our supreme court justices is obviously up for debate.
1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached
There is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional.
Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
> Of course, you’d be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
“66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
“66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
Ah, oops, mixed up the proposal requirements and the ratification requirements. 2/3 to propose. 3/4 to ratify.
2/3 of each House of Congress isn’t 2/3 of America, though.
It can also be 2/3 of states by convention, which, while isn't 2/3 of the population, 2/3 of states is compellingly 2/3 "of America".
> It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional.
You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.
You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.
> the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification.
They don't even have to be reasonable justifications, judging by the justifications they've used for other rulings recently.
They don't even have to be reasonable justifications, judging by the justifications they've used for other rulings recently.
[deleted]
This. The SC turns out to be just as rotten as the rest of them.
I remember when the standard was that judges should avoid the appearance of corruption, not just avoid the reality of it.
I remember when the standard was that judges should avoid the appearance of corruption, not just avoid the reality of it.
> A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want.
For the regular government worker, does it matter who gives you that card? In the private sector, it's an issue if the card comes from a vendor, customer, etc, but if you just get a gift from some unaffiliated party there no need to report it to your employer.
For the regular government worker, does it matter who gives you that card? In the private sector, it's an issue if the card comes from a vendor, customer, etc, but if you just get a gift from some unaffiliated party there no need to report it to your employer.
If a gift card could influence future work decisions I personally would report it as the company does not need much to relieve you from duty if there is even a hint of impropriety
Maybe at the point where your company is considering doing business with them and you have a say in the matter, but otherwise it's your own business. I've never seen an HR policy that required disclosures without at least some relationship to the work you are actually doing.
Isn't this normal throughout history? Laws do not apply to the ruling class themselves.
While we probably can’t completely fix it, shouldn’t we still try?
The US supreme court is absurdly political, I don't see how that can work long-term. There are very strong incentives to put judges on it that strongly represent your political views. This also means that holding them accountable is strongly disincentivized if it means that you might lose one slot.
A supreme court that is blatantly partisan is not really a proper check nor balance. The system must be set up in a way that encourages less partisan judges, though I don't know how you could achieve that in the US the way the situation is now.
A supreme court that is blatantly partisan is not really a proper check nor balance. The system must be set up in a way that encourages less partisan judges, though I don't know how you could achieve that in the US the way the situation is now.
It’s been that way ever since it because a vehicle for undemocratically pushing through laws that you can’t achieve democratically. It won’t stop being political unless it stops being an alternative to getting a majority of the vote for your preferred policies.
Hmm...just like congress doesn't have a problem with trading stocks of companies in industries they oversee and have insider knowledge on, such as which businesses can be open and which ones have to close during the pandemic, or which company is going to get a big government contract, etc. Why do we leave these questions to the institutions themselves to answer? The answer will always be "we don't see a problem."
The check on Congress is the voting booth. Can’t vote out corrupt justices.
They can be impeached by Congress which itself is installed by the people. It's a good level of indirection to keep the court from pandering to the passions of the public while retaining the ability to remove a justice that goes rouge.
At least in theory.
At least in theory.
That's an even less effective check than impeachment. Has anyone with a constituency as large as a member of congress ever lost an election because of corruption? If one has, was their constituency subject to political gerrymandering?
Most members of congress could as well have life terms, as long as they don't go against those who put them in power.
Most members of congress could as well have life terms, as long as they don't go against those who put them in power.
Impeachment is toothless as a tool to reign in corruption, at least on the Republican side, as was shown very recently.
Impeachment was just tried to remove former President Trump twice for serious crimes (we are not talking about lying about a blowjob here), and it failed. Twice.
In the first instance, the House prosecutors proved that Trump used extortion to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign ally that would help him politically. In his defense, Trump's lawyers literally argued that he was right to do so, because he believed it would help his campaign, and him winning his campaign was the best thing for America. Ipso facto, he can't be impeached for trying to help America. Notably, the conduct was not denied. The senate sided with Trump in that argument, so he was acquitted. Impeachment cannot be used to reign in executives who extort and/or solicit bribes, that has been shown.
Then there was the second impeachment. If ever there was a case to impeach a president, it would be one who incited an insurrection. And yet, Senate Republicans slow walked the impeachment trial, then claimed as it was held they couldn't impeach Trump because they had taken to long to start the trial. I mean, when else are you supposed to impeach a president who stages a coup and incites violence at the end of his term? Impeachment cannot be used to reign in insurrectionist executives, that has been shown.
So what good is impeachment? If it is toothless in the face of blatant proven corruption (they didn't even try to deny it) and abject lawlessness, then it might as well not even be in the Constitution in the first place. It's moot.
Impeachment was just tried to remove former President Trump twice for serious crimes (we are not talking about lying about a blowjob here), and it failed. Twice.
In the first instance, the House prosecutors proved that Trump used extortion to try to solicit a bribe from a foreign ally that would help him politically. In his defense, Trump's lawyers literally argued that he was right to do so, because he believed it would help his campaign, and him winning his campaign was the best thing for America. Ipso facto, he can't be impeached for trying to help America. Notably, the conduct was not denied. The senate sided with Trump in that argument, so he was acquitted. Impeachment cannot be used to reign in executives who extort and/or solicit bribes, that has been shown.
Then there was the second impeachment. If ever there was a case to impeach a president, it would be one who incited an insurrection. And yet, Senate Republicans slow walked the impeachment trial, then claimed as it was held they couldn't impeach Trump because they had taken to long to start the trial. I mean, when else are you supposed to impeach a president who stages a coup and incites violence at the end of his term? Impeachment cannot be used to reign in insurrectionist executives, that has been shown.
So what good is impeachment? If it is toothless in the face of blatant proven corruption (they didn't even try to deny it) and abject lawlessness, then it might as well not even be in the Constitution in the first place. It's moot.
I'm not saying impeachment is effective. I'm just saying that voting is an even less effective check on corruption.
And I’m saying it’s impossible to be less effective than impeachment.
I would disagree. Voting out a person is mutually exclusive to changing laws and regulations. This is why the idea of voting someone out is supported by all parties. Looks like change yet does not require the change to take effect. New representation is not required to override the previous laws and actions.
Some states have binding resolution. This is where the anyone can go door to door asking for signatures. With enough signatures the resolution is placed on the ballot and the people can vote on. Passage forces representatives to change laws and requirements based on the wording of the resolution. Example would be Colorado requiring legalization of cannabis while overriding the elected politician that kept voting against the legislatively pushed legalization.
Most states have non-binding resolution. This means you can go door to door and get signatures to place on the ballots for the people to vote on. The outcome of the vote has no power and is just means to perform a mass survey.
Votes that pass binding resolutions are more equivocal to, "Representatives, you must do this". While non-binding resolutions are equivocal to, "Representatives, please please pretty please can you act upon our request, we beg of you".
I would say in order to actually have checks and balance, the people must be the fourth section of government that can enact change. Ability to vote on a single issue instead of only being able to vote on a single person.
In my opinion, having binding resolution reduces the need for protests and violence to enact change. And require politicians to work together versus being extremely polarized.
Some states have binding resolution. This is where the anyone can go door to door asking for signatures. With enough signatures the resolution is placed on the ballot and the people can vote on. Passage forces representatives to change laws and requirements based on the wording of the resolution. Example would be Colorado requiring legalization of cannabis while overriding the elected politician that kept voting against the legislatively pushed legalization.
Most states have non-binding resolution. This means you can go door to door and get signatures to place on the ballots for the people to vote on. The outcome of the vote has no power and is just means to perform a mass survey.
Votes that pass binding resolutions are more equivocal to, "Representatives, you must do this". While non-binding resolutions are equivocal to, "Representatives, please please pretty please can you act upon our request, we beg of you".
I would say in order to actually have checks and balance, the people must be the fourth section of government that can enact change. Ability to vote on a single issue instead of only being able to vote on a single person.
In my opinion, having binding resolution reduces the need for protests and violence to enact change. And require politicians to work together versus being extremely polarized.
You bring up some good points, and I agree broadly with your points about direct citizen action.
But I think recent history has taught me that voting matters, and elections matter. People are getting what they voted for across the country, and I don't think there has been a point in recent history where that has been starker. A state like Colorado is often called "purple" because many issues are split down the middle there. So yeah, in some instances there's going to be a mismatch between the electorate and politicians. But at the same time, there's a big difference between e.g. California and Florida regarding how someone like me (LGBTQ) is perceived by the government. It's not direct citizen action holding the lions at bay in my state, it's the collective action of voting for representatives who don't pass legislation targeting us.
But I think recent history has taught me that voting matters, and elections matter. People are getting what they voted for across the country, and I don't think there has been a point in recent history where that has been starker. A state like Colorado is often called "purple" because many issues are split down the middle there. So yeah, in some instances there's going to be a mismatch between the electorate and politicians. But at the same time, there's a big difference between e.g. California and Florida regarding how someone like me (LGBTQ) is perceived by the government. It's not direct citizen action holding the lions at bay in my state, it's the collective action of voting for representatives who don't pass legislation targeting us.
The billionaire that bought out Thomas has close ties to the Bush family and has a long history of contributing to GOP led smear campaigns. While going after Thomas is important, we must also have our eyes on the man bankrolling this.
The US judiciary system is an absurd institution. Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability and virtually limitless power to give/take away rights on a whim. Where are the checks and balances that every other branch of government adheres to?
> Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability
“In good behavior”, with accountability to Congress.
De facto for life with no accountability is, like many problems in the US system of government, largely a side effect of the combination of defective electoral system and the resulting norm of near-balanced partisan duopoly, which in the case of the judiciary combines with the supermajority requirement for conviction on impeachment charges to achieve lack of accountability; the same is also true of the executive, though finite terms, electoral accountability, and in principal (and currently being tested in practice) post-term legal accountability are arguably mitigations there.
“In good behavior”, with accountability to Congress.
De facto for life with no accountability is, like many problems in the US system of government, largely a side effect of the combination of defective electoral system and the resulting norm of near-balanced partisan duopoly, which in the case of the judiciary combines with the supermajority requirement for conviction on impeachment charges to achieve lack of accountability; the same is also true of the executive, though finite terms, electoral accountability, and in principal (and currently being tested in practice) post-term legal accountability are arguably mitigations there.
They are supposed to be accountable to Congress.
Their ability to interpret rights and issues is checked by Congress actually passing specific legislation on those issues, or even better constitutional amendments.
They are also directly accountable in terms of confirmation and impeachment.
The seeming rise in power of the Supreme Court is in some ways a long tail symptom of the continuing lack of efficacy of Congress to fulfill their duties as lawmakers and proportional representatives of the citizens they serve.
Their ability to interpret rights and issues is checked by Congress actually passing specific legislation on those issues, or even better constitutional amendments.
They are also directly accountable in terms of confirmation and impeachment.
The seeming rise in power of the Supreme Court is in some ways a long tail symptom of the continuing lack of efficacy of Congress to fulfill their duties as lawmakers and proportional representatives of the citizens they serve.
the supreme court has a history of "going rogue" when the legislature is divided and weak. ezra klein did a good podcast on this a few months ago
The Supreme Court is a critical piece of the checks and balances system. They need to hold their positions for life because they should not be afraid of losing them due to the whims of the President, Congress, or even the voters. We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed; that is a feature. If a justice is corrupt or incompetent, there are processes to remove them from the bench. The ironic part is that if that doesn't happen, it'll be because the people charged with doing it are so mired in politics that they can't, or won't.
> We want them to be outside of the political process once they've been appointed
Yes, we do. However, regardless of what the system intended, that's not what we have anyway.
Yes, we do. However, regardless of what the system intended, that's not what we have anyway.
Agreed, which is why there are processes to remove them. My point is that those processes fail because the people charged with undertaking them are political. So, more politics is not, in my mind, the solution.
> So, more politics is not, in my mind, the solution.
But this is a political problem. What non-political solutions are even possible?
But this is a political problem. What non-political solutions are even possible?
I can agree that there should be as much insulation from the political process as possible but I believe lifetime appointments actually increase the politicization of the institution. There have been interesting proposals around, e.g. 18 year terms staggered in such a way that there is a new vacancy every two years or so. This has the advantage of limiting the damage a corrupt justice can do even in the event that a a corrupt appointment is made. The current system with lifetime appointments made _through_ an extremely political process with no accountability for sitting justices is awful and already looks like it may be the downfall of the institution. I am as disgusted by our politics is anyone but I am genuinely curious how we could possibly have reform and accountability for the institution without political action.
This is about how it works in Mexico (15 year terms). The 18 years might be needed to avoid a court majority from two four year presidential terms, although I'd say adopting the single six year presidential term would be a good change as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_th...
they can be impeached by Congress and lose their position.
it would take a lot of collective effort to make it happen, though.
it would take a lot of collective effort to make it happen, though.
What can we do about this kind of stuff happening from a legal perspective? Supreme court justices are appointed for life and basically have no real "checks"
Nominally the "check" on this would be impeachment-and-removal, I guess. In practice, given the current partisan environment and the very high vote requirement (2/3 of the Senate), I rather doubt it'll ever happen unless something even more ridiculously corrupt-looking than the current (quite corrupt-looking) news occurs...
A few things come to mind...
- Impeaching federal judges isn't unheard of, though with today's hyper-partisan Congress, unlikely to happen.
- While federal judges have life appointments, nothing in the Constitution prevents a "term limit" on a particular judge/court pairing. IE, we could move Supremes to a lower federal court after 15 years without amending the Constitution.
- We could demand POTUS and Congress stop appointing assholes and crooks to the bench. But, that's about as likely as the first bullet.
- While federal judges have life appointments, nothing in the Constitution prevents a "term limit" on a particular judge/court pairing. IE, we could move Supremes to a lower federal court after 15 years without amending the Constitution.
- We could demand POTUS and Congress stop appointing assholes and crooks to the bench. But, that's about as likely as the first bullet.
> While federal judges have life appointments, nothing in the Constitution prevents a "term limit" on a particular judge/court pairing.
Are you sure? The constitution says:
> The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…
That seems rather unambiguous to me.
Are you sure? The constitution says:
> The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…
That seems rather unambiguous to me.
Sure? No. But the idea isn't completely ridiculous. We already allow Supremes to "retire" as senior judges (where they sit on lower benches - O'Connor did this, IIRC). The proposal to enforce this after some term of service is just an extension of the idea. It basically interprets "their Offices" to mean "office of federal jurist" as opposed to the specific role to which the judge was appointed.
I'm not sure this would hold up to scrutiny, as the office of Supreme Court Justice and federal judge are different offices. The extreme version of this is that we'd obviously not get away with interpreting their office to be "civil servant"and shuffling them off to the DMV.
Different offices, but the process for a Supreme to retire and move to "normal federal judge" already exists - no re-confirmation or other antics required.
Of course, SCOTUS would end up being the ultimate arbiter here, so quite likely a non-starter for that reason alone.
Of course, SCOTUS would end up being the ultimate arbiter here, so quite likely a non-starter for that reason alone.
It's tough because the SCOTUS was kind of designed to be far removed from voters.
You'll have to talk to your representatives in congress about this, or vote for candidates who want to do something about it. Congress can impose laws, impeach current justices, and/or add new justices (who hopefully aren't as corrupt) to dilute the influence of obviously corrupt justices.
The majority of long time members of congress probably will be hesitant to do anything because they are probably guilty of similar things themselves though - see recent news stories about insider trading. With this in mind, pay attention to your primary elections!
You'll have to talk to your representatives in congress about this, or vote for candidates who want to do something about it. Congress can impose laws, impeach current justices, and/or add new justices (who hopefully aren't as corrupt) to dilute the influence of obviously corrupt justices.
The majority of long time members of congress probably will be hesitant to do anything because they are probably guilty of similar things themselves though - see recent news stories about insider trading. With this in mind, pay attention to your primary elections!
It’s a fundamental trade off in the system. The branches of government are insulated from each other by design. In many other countries, it’s common for high court judges to be removed and replaced for political reasons. That creates a different set of problems.
Congress, if any of this were actual bribery and if they had the numbers for an impeachment and removal proceeding. At most the Justices need to fill out their paperwork better.
As if any congress critter would be willing to stand up and make this accusation knowing the kind of things they've accepted in order to get to their position.
Well impeachment is a political choice more than a legal one, and to be blunt, I haven’t seen a damn thing in any of these pieces that looks particularly damning; just that as a matter of course the Justices should also take better care to follow whatever procedures they’re subject to since they’re not expected to show leniency to anyone who doesn’t follow the procedures of the court when they have business before the court.
The chance of either party going along with impeaching a justice "on their side" when the opposing party controls the White House and Senate is approximately zero. This is sort of like proposals for various things that involve constitutional amendments: unthinkable in the current climate.
Maybe there's a level of wrongdoing where their own voters would demand it, but I think it's generally more likely for voters to demand hard-nosed partisanship.
Not that these particular allegations really get anywhere near the level where this would be a question.
Maybe there's a level of wrongdoing where their own voters would demand it, but I think it's generally more likely for voters to demand hard-nosed partisanship.
Not that these particular allegations really get anywhere near the level where this would be a question.
Agreed on all counts.
Thomas could pull a trump and shoot someone on 5th ave. and he wouldn't get impeached.
We have to organize to disobey SCOTUS decisions.
If there are no consequences, they have no reason to stop.
The court is corrupt. They may not realize it, but that's what this is.
This is what I get from Sweden: “This site not available in your country”.
> Across the ideological spectrum
daily reminder that we’re all aware of the ways each side is different, and that its valid to be more bothered by the ways in which they’re the same
daily reminder that we’re all aware of the ways each side is different, and that its valid to be more bothered by the ways in which they’re the same
Funny how often news that "Congress passed a bipartisan bill" is scarier than one that squeaked by along party lines.
The salary for justices is under $300,000 a year. There is no promotion path, and it's intended to be a lifetime appointment. Corporate law firm partners routinely make well into 7 figures.That is an invitation to corruption, they are some of the most powerful people in the United States. This isn't meant to excuse unethical behavior or corruption, but it should be addressed at the same time as enforcement.
While I understand what you're saying, I disagree with the premise.
A Justice doesn't have to be a Justice. They could stay on a lower court, or in corporate law, or wherever they were prior to being elevated to the bench. They could also retire and take a corporate job, just as many members of Congress and the Executive do (which is likely a different flavor of corruption, but another discussion). Point being, there is no need for a Justice to be corrupt for financial reason - $300k is objectively a lot of money in 2023 and they can always quit and go elsewhere.
We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress. We expect them to happily take their reasonable but not lavish salary (and then go do a book tour or whatever afterwards).
A Justice doesn't have to be a Justice. They could stay on a lower court, or in corporate law, or wherever they were prior to being elevated to the bench. They could also retire and take a corporate job, just as many members of Congress and the Executive do (which is likely a different flavor of corruption, but another discussion). Point being, there is no need for a Justice to be corrupt for financial reason - $300k is objectively a lot of money in 2023 and they can always quit and go elsewhere.
We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress. We expect them to happily take their reasonable but not lavish salary (and then go do a book tour or whatever afterwards).
> We don't make the same argument for the President or Congress
We allow them (congress) to trade stocks with knowledge from their privileged positions that no one else has. A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees.
We allow them (congress) to trade stocks with knowledge from their privileged positions that no one else has. A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees.
> A lot of them walk out millionaires, before any book deals or speaking fees.
With $174,000 base pay, decent benefits, and frequently leaving with several decades of service, it’s not that hard to leave with a $1 million+ net worth without corruption.
(And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.)
To be clear, I’m not saying that there isn’t abuse of privilege and corruption in Congress, but “a lot of them walk out as millionaires” is…well, what you’d expect without any corruption at all.
With $174,000 base pay, decent benefits, and frequently leaving with several decades of service, it’s not that hard to leave with a $1 million+ net worth without corruption.
(And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.)
To be clear, I’m not saying that there isn’t abuse of privilege and corruption in Congress, but “a lot of them walk out as millionaires” is…well, what you’d expect without any corruption at all.
$174k...how much of that is left after taxes and paying for a second residence in one of the most expensive cities, Washington DC? $174k really isn't that much in 2023. They'd be lucky to clear $100k after taxes and housing and that's before including other living expenses.
> (And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.)
I wasn't including them as it seems obvious millionaire in/millionaire out, but could have been more clear.
> (And that’s even before considering how many members enter as millionaires.)
I wasn't including them as it seems obvious millionaire in/millionaire out, but could have been more clear.
> $174k really isn’t that much in 2023.
To the extent that $174k/year individual income isn’t “that much” in 2023, neither is $1 million net worth. (They are both close to 95th percentile.)
To the extent that $174k/year individual income isn’t “that much” in 2023, neither is $1 million net worth. (They are both close to 95th percentile.)
Yes, but they do report those transactions. It's unsavory, no question, but mostly above-board. Thomas willingly hiding payments from a billionaire who had business before the court is a whole different level.
> Yes, but they do report those transactions.
You mean they're supposed to report the trades within 45 days. Not all do, and not all have gotten in trouble for violating the STOCK Act.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-gro...
You mean they're supposed to report the trades within 45 days. Not all do, and not all have gotten in trouble for violating the STOCK Act.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/22/1039287987/outside-ethics-gro...
What's the amount of money we can pay them to not be corrupt?
Judging from how little it takes for a pharma rep to entice a doctor to prescribe their product, there might not be an amount that can prevent the temptation of corruption. Getting something for free can still be enticing to the wealthy, especially if they think they're getting away with something. Probably pushes some buttons that aren't really related to wealth, at least not directly.
The amount is largely enough for a family of 5 with only one partner working, relative to where they live (DC in this case). I think $250K-$300 + Housing + Transport (I suppose for their safety?) is largely enough.
After that it's up to the person in question...
After that it's up to the person in question...
I don't think increasing pay would reduce corruption. A corrupt person is a corrupt person regardless. If you paid a corrupt justice a million dollars a year, why would they not decide to make it 5 million on the side?
> A corrupt person is a corrupt person regardless.
Could not disagree more.
Could not disagree more.
This implies that law firm partners and other lavishly rich people are immune (or less likely to fall) to corruption, which is very obviously not true.
Justices have many avenues for non-controversial extra income, like speaking engagements, books, and teaching appointments. All of them take advantage of these, and all or nearly all of them are millionaires as a result. This generally receives little pushback as long as it is disclosed, and there is much less potential for corruption than secretly receiving "gifts" from political activists.
[deleted]
> That is an invitation to corruption
It's not, because every nominee knows those facts going in. If someone wants to cash in for big money, they shouldn't volunteer for this job.
It's not, because every nominee knows those facts going in. If someone wants to cash in for big money, they shouldn't volunteer for this job.
Lifetime appointments, dysfunctional congress means that any novel, meaningful political developments are going to come from a corrupt, partisan court that won't be held accountable. Exciting stuff.
I think the problems with politicisation of the judiciary and general venality in the US are due to the same dynamic that erases democracy in communist countries like the USSR and China. Hear me out.
In the USSR and China you do have democracy, but it’s voting for party lists of approved candidates. These people sit on committees that vote for the next rung up, and so in until you get to the top. The problem is too much democracy. But because it’s all run by committees in practice it’s all stitched up in back room deals with the leaders at the top directing the lower levels.
In the US it’s a different structure but the effect is similar. You don’t just have elected politicians, but ejected judges, elected sheriffs, prosecutors, electoral officials, even elected librarians. Plus direct voting on initiatives. Ordinary voters can’t possibly keep up with who is who, what their individual records are or what platforms all these people are standing on. so they just go with the party approved candidate. Parties also run campaigns for candidates, so in practice candidates owe their actual chance of getting elected not to the voters, but to the patronage of party machines.
This goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Liberal justices are the darlings of Democrats and are feted and celebrated. Conservative justices are the darlings of Republicans.
The problem is severe disconnection between voters and the people they are voting for.
In the USSR and China you do have democracy, but it’s voting for party lists of approved candidates. These people sit on committees that vote for the next rung up, and so in until you get to the top. The problem is too much democracy. But because it’s all run by committees in practice it’s all stitched up in back room deals with the leaders at the top directing the lower levels.
In the US it’s a different structure but the effect is similar. You don’t just have elected politicians, but ejected judges, elected sheriffs, prosecutors, electoral officials, even elected librarians. Plus direct voting on initiatives. Ordinary voters can’t possibly keep up with who is who, what their individual records are or what platforms all these people are standing on. so they just go with the party approved candidate. Parties also run campaigns for candidates, so in practice candidates owe their actual chance of getting elected not to the voters, but to the patronage of party machines.
This goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Liberal justices are the darlings of Democrats and are feted and celebrated. Conservative justices are the darlings of Republicans.
The problem is severe disconnection between voters and the people they are voting for.
We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.
> we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing
Did they? I thought the issue is the Chief Justice hasn’t bothered to investigate. Instead, it’s the Clarence Thomas show.
Did they? I thought the issue is the Chief Justice hasn’t bothered to investigate. Instead, it’s the Clarence Thomas show.
That is the point of this saying.
> that is the point of this saying
Not quite. It’s used when someone is unchecked. For example, a dictator saying they looked into their alleged wrongdoing and found nothing wrong. This isn’t that. It’s the people who have the power to check Thomas, i.e. the Court, the Congress and the DoJ, choosing to do nothing.
Not quite. It’s used when someone is unchecked. For example, a dictator saying they looked into their alleged wrongdoing and found nothing wrong. This isn’t that. It’s the people who have the power to check Thomas, i.e. the Court, the Congress and the DoJ, choosing to do nothing.
[deleted]
The other body with the power to investigate, and to punish if they find wrongdoing, is Congress.
Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. Corruption might just be the price (whether or not it is too high) that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court. Corruption might just be the price (whether or not it is too high) that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Let's not lump together making it illegal for federal judges to accept gifts from people with business before the federal courts and limiting the power of the courts. Those are very different things.
In Article III Section 1 of the constitution says this about federal judges: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Interpreting the constitution so that my bad behavior is not bad behavior any more looks to me like it oversteps the bounds, and since laws are only proposed and enacted by congress I'd say it's pretty clear that congress has the right and duty to define bad behavior.
In Article III Section 1 of the constitution says this about federal judges: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour." Interpreting the constitution so that my bad behavior is not bad behavior any more looks to me like it oversteps the bounds, and since laws are only proposed and enacted by congress I'd say it's pretty clear that congress has the right and duty to define bad behavior.
And the mechanism is clear, if you think a judge committed some crime (or even an ethics violation that doesn't quite meet the proper definition of crime).
Impeach them.
The trouble with this is that some people want immediate results for their political whims without putting any work into it, without spending any political capital over it.
The tactics that have been used so far really do smack of limiting the power of the courts. This is understandable, in that the people wanting to do that see a Supreme Court filled with justices they do not agree with politically. If those people were to succeed, they will discover in 10 or 15 years that they did not have the eternal control of Congress that they thought they did, but they will have hamstrung the other branch of government that might have put a stop to the worst of the nonsense.
And that holds true no matter which party you think I'm talking about. It's "filibusters are inconvenient to me right now, let's get rid of them forever!" all over again.
Impeach them.
The trouble with this is that some people want immediate results for their political whims without putting any work into it, without spending any political capital over it.
The tactics that have been used so far really do smack of limiting the power of the courts. This is understandable, in that the people wanting to do that see a Supreme Court filled with justices they do not agree with politically. If those people were to succeed, they will discover in 10 or 15 years that they did not have the eternal control of Congress that they thought they did, but they will have hamstrung the other branch of government that might have put a stop to the worst of the nonsense.
And that holds true no matter which party you think I'm talking about. It's "filibusters are inconvenient to me right now, let's get rid of them forever!" all over again.
Bribery of a public official as discussed in the linked article is a criminal statute. Judges like anyone else are not above the criminal law and in fact federal judges have been charged and in one case (Otto Kerner 1974) convicted of bribery while in office. Impeachment is a different matter.
In any case, charging judges who engage in criminal behavior with crimes is normal business of the Republic, as is writing laws defining bribery, and the penalties. Redefining a criminal statute so that one can engage in previously illegal behavior stinks and probably does warrant impeachment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigat...
In any case, charging judges who engage in criminal behavior with crimes is normal business of the Republic, as is writing laws defining bribery, and the penalties. Redefining a criminal statute so that one can engage in previously illegal behavior stinks and probably does warrant impeachment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigat...
Democrat administration, independent DOJ. The House is Democrat majority, they can send articles of impeachment. They've had recent practice.
If this is bribery, just do it. Quit whining about it. Instead, they call an entirely different justice to testify, as if there's anything to say. Is that a fishing expedition, an attempt to embarrass the institution on public tv, or both?
No reform is needed here. All the tools you need are at your disposal. Go for it.
If this is bribery, just do it. Quit whining about it. Instead, they call an entirely different justice to testify, as if there's anything to say. Is that a fishing expedition, an attempt to embarrass the institution on public tv, or both?
No reform is needed here. All the tools you need are at your disposal. Go for it.
House is under Republican control. And they didn’t call just any random Justice to testify, they called the Chief Justice.
Even so, there's room to negotiate. Biden can't replace Thomas without the Senate's ok, and they might go for it if they got to choose the new one (and they might even be worried that if they wait, it'd work out worse for them). Biden makes sure that their favorite isn't bugshit psycho, so even though the new one's still conservative, it's an improvement.
When the Democrats signal that they're never willing to negotiate, of course the other side will take the same tact... "Why would we want to anyway!?!" all sour grapes.
Back when Trump was still in office, they might have had a successful impeachment with a little negotiation. The Democrats had something to offer (the presidency), and the GOP didn't much care for him (they just didn't want to end up the losers if they helped the Dems). Promise to impeach Pence first, put in someone the GOP likes as VP. Then impeach Trump, their favorite candidate moves into the White House. There was even enough leverage to get Trump to agree to the VP replacement (both carrot and stick). Everyone (including the American people) could have won.
Wasted opportunities because it's more important to beat the other team than for everyone to win. Even worse results 20 years down the line because you're all too busy wanting to tear apart every check and balance for some temporary advantage. Really are getting the government you all deserve.
When the Democrats signal that they're never willing to negotiate, of course the other side will take the same tact... "Why would we want to anyway!?!" all sour grapes.
Back when Trump was still in office, they might have had a successful impeachment with a little negotiation. The Democrats had something to offer (the presidency), and the GOP didn't much care for him (they just didn't want to end up the losers if they helped the Dems). Promise to impeach Pence first, put in someone the GOP likes as VP. Then impeach Trump, their favorite candidate moves into the White House. There was even enough leverage to get Trump to agree to the VP replacement (both carrot and stick). Everyone (including the American people) could have won.
Wasted opportunities because it's more important to beat the other team than for everyone to win. Even worse results 20 years down the line because you're all too busy wanting to tear apart every check and balance for some temporary advantage. Really are getting the government you all deserve.
> Really are getting the government you all deserve.
By this I take it that you're not American? No offense, but your analysis while logical from an ends justify the means perspective, is just a fantasy. It's not a realistic, as it ignores the entire cult dynamic of the MAGA movement, which is well-documented at this point. Republican inaction on the worst aspects of Trumpism and the MAGA movement are not explained by "they just didn't want to end up the losers if they helped the Dems". It doesn't explain the retconning of the January 6th insurrection from Republicans at all levels of government, and the media. It doesn't explain the lunacy of the 118th Congress.
Sorry, the idea that, but for Democrats, Republicans would have reigned in the worst and most powerful within their own ranks is simply preposterous. Republicans are responsible for their own party, plain and simple.
By this I take it that you're not American? No offense, but your analysis while logical from an ends justify the means perspective, is just a fantasy. It's not a realistic, as it ignores the entire cult dynamic of the MAGA movement, which is well-documented at this point. Republican inaction on the worst aspects of Trumpism and the MAGA movement are not explained by "they just didn't want to end up the losers if they helped the Dems". It doesn't explain the retconning of the January 6th insurrection from Republicans at all levels of government, and the media. It doesn't explain the lunacy of the 118th Congress.
Sorry, the idea that, but for Democrats, Republicans would have reigned in the worst and most powerful within their own ranks is simply preposterous. Republicans are responsible for their own party, plain and simple.
[deleted]
> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Especially in light that it takes a supermajority of the Senate to remove someone from the court, not just control of the Senate.
> that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Direct election of members of congress is the better speedbump.
I don't quite understand what you're saying here. Especially in light that it takes a supermajority of the Senate to remove someone from the court, not just control of the Senate.
> that one pays to make certain that there are some speed bumps in the way of the House and Senate if they ever got too far out of whack.
Direct election of members of congress is the better speedbump.
> Only someone who was confident in his faction's ability to control Congress forever would hamstring the Supreme Court
Codes of conduct don’t constrain the Court, they constrain individual judges and justices. That’s the advantage of putting the enforcement within the judiciary, versus the executive (prosecution) or legislature (impeachment).
Codes of conduct don’t constrain the Court, they constrain individual judges and justices. That’s the advantage of putting the enforcement within the judiciary, versus the executive (prosecution) or legislature (impeachment).
Corruption means there won’t be speed bumps, at least for certain legislation that appeals to those doing the corrupting. That’s a bit part of the problem here.
You mean, lower the bar?
I have to give an unpopular opinion here. I strongly respect the SCOTUS justices and the methods of their qualification to the bench as well as their lack of term limits and seniority as a long-term component of stability within the federal government. There are few other institutions that provide the same level of rigor and thoughtfulness to our government, and have the credibility and respect because they do not swing with the wind every year.
Part of that capability includes that they not be swayed by whatever hot topic of the moment, including this. In general, I agree with the line, "if a Supreme Court justice can be bought for so little, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined".
Not to say that no justice has ever done anything unquestionable. But I find that the muckraking (like the Daily Beast article quoted by another comment) only seemed to garner interest in being investigated because of the number of controversial opinions lately.[0] And people on the left were happy with the way things were as long as the Court ruled in their favor. Which is a weak position to find yourself having taken.
Any time an argument about the structure of the Court comes up, I ask, did you feel that way when it was ruling in favor of you? If not, then what kind of institution are you asking to be created? Beware.
If you thought the Court needed to be packed, would you adopt the same position if it were to be packed with conservatives? If you call for the removal of Clarence Thomas, would you be happy to have seen RBG removed for some similar questionable travel she engaged in? You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases? Or is it just because the Court's rulings aren't going your way lately?
We have far too much in society today where people want to change the rules just because the last decision didn't go their way. Democracy, I think, is actually about losing gracefully and without having a revolution, not that you always get your way.
The Court is deciding topics that are intrinsically hard to make "objectively fair" decisions about. This Court chooses to return us to previous positions that were also defensible (or saying that interpretations were incorrect) and according to certain legal principles, re-adhering to what the Constitution says to do. The Court rules on things that are intrinsically open for interpretation.
And it is a reflection of our other parts of government being dysfunctional that we for example, cannot amend the Constitution if we think that standards need to change. No court will save us on an issue where 50% of people disagree on it, no matter how strongly you may feel that your side is right. The Court is the last place that you should try to make change happen.
I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way.
[0] See this story for why you should read more of the detail if you wish to have a position that's more informed than "this is so corrupt": https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...
Part of that capability includes that they not be swayed by whatever hot topic of the moment, including this. In general, I agree with the line, "if a Supreme Court justice can be bought for so little, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined".
Not to say that no justice has ever done anything unquestionable. But I find that the muckraking (like the Daily Beast article quoted by another comment) only seemed to garner interest in being investigated because of the number of controversial opinions lately.[0] And people on the left were happy with the way things were as long as the Court ruled in their favor. Which is a weak position to find yourself having taken.
Any time an argument about the structure of the Court comes up, I ask, did you feel that way when it was ruling in favor of you? If not, then what kind of institution are you asking to be created? Beware.
If you thought the Court needed to be packed, would you adopt the same position if it were to be packed with conservatives? If you call for the removal of Clarence Thomas, would you be happy to have seen RBG removed for some similar questionable travel she engaged in? You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases? Or is it just because the Court's rulings aren't going your way lately?
We have far too much in society today where people want to change the rules just because the last decision didn't go their way. Democracy, I think, is actually about losing gracefully and without having a revolution, not that you always get your way.
The Court is deciding topics that are intrinsically hard to make "objectively fair" decisions about. This Court chooses to return us to previous positions that were also defensible (or saying that interpretations were incorrect) and according to certain legal principles, re-adhering to what the Constitution says to do. The Court rules on things that are intrinsically open for interpretation.
And it is a reflection of our other parts of government being dysfunctional that we for example, cannot amend the Constitution if we think that standards need to change. No court will save us on an issue where 50% of people disagree on it, no matter how strongly you may feel that your side is right. The Court is the last place that you should try to make change happen.
I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way.
[0] See this story for why you should read more of the detail if you wish to have a position that's more informed than "this is so corrupt": https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...
You're correct: justices' opinions do not swing in they wind. They are cemented at the moment they were nominated, and remain the same for decades.
I don't believe Thomas was bought by bribery. I don't think any reasonable observer does. Rather, I think that he was friends with a very wealthy person, who appreciates that Thomas is ideologically inclined to give him what he wants.
Nor is that illegal. The illegal part is failing to disclose it. Nobody can say why he failed to disclose it. He has no reason to be embarrassed by it. It's widely interpreted as contempt for the law -- an uncomfortable thing to believe about the highest court in the land.
I know that a lot of lawyers (of all ideologies) have a lot of respect for the work of the Supreme Court. As a non-lawyer, my lack of respect should mean less than theirs. But when a decision comes down to ideology, they can be relied on to vote with their decades-old beliefs, and the entire charade of presenting a case seems unnecessary. The decision could have been written without pretending that they were actually deciding anything.
As you day, democracy is about losing gracefully. But as of now, I'm practically guaranteed to lose for the rest of my life any time it comes down to an ideological issue. That's not corruption; it's the fact that there are at least five justices who I don't believe will even consider it. The fact that one of them doesn't consider a law relevant is an indicator that something is badly aligned, upsetting the balance under which I'm expected to be a good loser.
I don't believe Thomas was bought by bribery. I don't think any reasonable observer does. Rather, I think that he was friends with a very wealthy person, who appreciates that Thomas is ideologically inclined to give him what he wants.
Nor is that illegal. The illegal part is failing to disclose it. Nobody can say why he failed to disclose it. He has no reason to be embarrassed by it. It's widely interpreted as contempt for the law -- an uncomfortable thing to believe about the highest court in the land.
I know that a lot of lawyers (of all ideologies) have a lot of respect for the work of the Supreme Court. As a non-lawyer, my lack of respect should mean less than theirs. But when a decision comes down to ideology, they can be relied on to vote with their decades-old beliefs, and the entire charade of presenting a case seems unnecessary. The decision could have been written without pretending that they were actually deciding anything.
As you day, democracy is about losing gracefully. But as of now, I'm practically guaranteed to lose for the rest of my life any time it comes down to an ideological issue. That's not corruption; it's the fact that there are at least five justices who I don't believe will even consider it. The fact that one of them doesn't consider a law relevant is an indicator that something is badly aligned, upsetting the balance under which I'm expected to be a good loser.
But I think there is a saving grace to your thinking that justices' views were cemented at birth/confirmation.
One of the respect-worthy things about Scalia (even Thomas) is that they believe(d) that what the Constitution says, should be followed. One of their fundamental differences with, say, the more liberal justices, is that you should not read new/updated rights into a document that says what it says. If on the other hand you say that justices should adapt to what the current interpretation of a document implies, then maybe it goes your way, but someone interpreting modern values differently might equally conflict with what you want.
In that sense their position is clear and stable. They don't agree that the rights you're claiming are found in the Constitution.
How then, do you change that or turn it to your advantage? You make laws and amend the Constitution to change the ground rules of society over time. And justices that take the above approach will, if they are reputable, continue to follow their adherence to what the Constitution (updated) says.
Now, as I said above, our system seems to be quite dysfunctional right now in that a lot of issues cannot be decided by society given our political reality right now. But having a court decide an issue when 50% of people disagree will not gain it any credibility, or resolve it for society.
One of the respect-worthy things about Scalia (even Thomas) is that they believe(d) that what the Constitution says, should be followed. One of their fundamental differences with, say, the more liberal justices, is that you should not read new/updated rights into a document that says what it says. If on the other hand you say that justices should adapt to what the current interpretation of a document implies, then maybe it goes your way, but someone interpreting modern values differently might equally conflict with what you want.
In that sense their position is clear and stable. They don't agree that the rights you're claiming are found in the Constitution.
How then, do you change that or turn it to your advantage? You make laws and amend the Constitution to change the ground rules of society over time. And justices that take the above approach will, if they are reputable, continue to follow their adherence to what the Constitution (updated) says.
Now, as I said above, our system seems to be quite dysfunctional right now in that a lot of issues cannot be decided by society given our political reality right now. But having a court decide an issue when 50% of people disagree will not gain it any credibility, or resolve it for society.
> One of the respect-worthy things about Scalia (even Thomas) is that they believe(d) that what the Constitution says, should be followed.
As a mode of rationalization of why the Constitution should be read in a way which supports their ideologically preferences, yes. As anything more deeply meaningful than that; some evidence in Scalia’s case, less in Thomas’s.
> One of their fundamental differences with, say, the more liberal justices, is that you should not read new/updated rights into a document that says what it says.
That’s not actually a difference between them and most of the more liberal justices; they actually legitimately disagree on original intent.
> If on the other hand you say that justices should adapt to what the current interpretation of a document implies, then maybe it goes your way, but someone interpreting modern values differently might equally conflict with what you want.
Believe it or not, its just as easy for people trying to interpret “what did the document mean in the eyes of the original writers” or “what would this text be seen as meaning in the original context it was written” (originalism/textualism) to come to differing conclusions than each other. The idea that either originalism or textualism produces stability is…well, I mean, its inconsistent with the decisions the Supreme Court has rendered with originalist or textualist rationales.
As a mode of rationalization of why the Constitution should be read in a way which supports their ideologically preferences, yes. As anything more deeply meaningful than that; some evidence in Scalia’s case, less in Thomas’s.
> One of their fundamental differences with, say, the more liberal justices, is that you should not read new/updated rights into a document that says what it says.
That’s not actually a difference between them and most of the more liberal justices; they actually legitimately disagree on original intent.
> If on the other hand you say that justices should adapt to what the current interpretation of a document implies, then maybe it goes your way, but someone interpreting modern values differently might equally conflict with what you want.
Believe it or not, its just as easy for people trying to interpret “what did the document mean in the eyes of the original writers” or “what would this text be seen as meaning in the original context it was written” (originalism/textualism) to come to differing conclusions than each other. The idea that either originalism or textualism produces stability is…well, I mean, its inconsistent with the decisions the Supreme Court has rendered with originalist or textualist rationales.
They don't agree that the rights you're claiming are found in the Constitution.
The Ninth Amendment makes it extremely clear that the list is not exhaustive. There is no originalist or textualist reading that can make "these are the only rights you have" valid.
The Ninth Amendment makes it extremely clear that the list is not exhaustive. There is no originalist or textualist reading that can make "these are the only rights you have" valid.
I think part of that is reasonable. Certainly the original writers envisioned changes to the future and how would the Constitution adapt?
But whether the SCOTUS judges should write wholesale changes to the scope of the Constitution or rights that drift away from the original intent? That certainly is a matter for debate and thinking about implications.
There is a mechanism for changing the Constitution, amendments. Why should certain topics, if they rise to the level of "should have been an amendment passed by the people", be imposed by the justices?
What if the Constitution envisions that judges should interpret ambiguities at the margin, and not create whole new rights that drift from the fundamental codebase, if you will?
And then on top of that, if some new right involves significant social questions and implications, why should 9 justices (legal professionals) be the ones to say what the answer is?
As you said, these are open for adjustment. But whether the rights you seek should be created by justices versus the democratic process I think I differ with. Or at least, I see the logic of the more conservative approach to.
But whether the SCOTUS judges should write wholesale changes to the scope of the Constitution or rights that drift away from the original intent? That certainly is a matter for debate and thinking about implications.
There is a mechanism for changing the Constitution, amendments. Why should certain topics, if they rise to the level of "should have been an amendment passed by the people", be imposed by the justices?
What if the Constitution envisions that judges should interpret ambiguities at the margin, and not create whole new rights that drift from the fundamental codebase, if you will?
And then on top of that, if some new right involves significant social questions and implications, why should 9 justices (legal professionals) be the ones to say what the answer is?
As you said, these are open for adjustment. But whether the rights you seek should be created by justices versus the democratic process I think I differ with. Or at least, I see the logic of the more conservative approach to.
Recognizing new rights shouldn't require a Constitutional amendment. It is possible under law, which has a vastly lower bar. If we can't pass it by law, we surely can't surpass the even higher bar Constitutional amendment.
The law is already a high bar. The process is designed to favor inaction. A dedicated minority can prevent law from passage -- and can do so solely for political reasons, regardless of their personal feelings or those of their constituents. To pass a law requires control of the House and the Senate (by a filibuster-proof margin) and the Presidency, at the same time. And an amendment is even higher than that.
The Supreme Court should be able to shortcut that by recognizing that the 9th Amendment explicitly forbids a reading of "you don't have this right if James Madison didn't give it to you". When they make that claim, the entire process is cast in doubt.
I would vastly rather see the Congress pass these rights. But when the Congress has cemented a Supreme Court dedicated to ensuring that you gain no rights, and is further willing to use any minority advantage to guarantee that it can't be done by law, then the Constitution really is a suicide pact.
The law is already a high bar. The process is designed to favor inaction. A dedicated minority can prevent law from passage -- and can do so solely for political reasons, regardless of their personal feelings or those of their constituents. To pass a law requires control of the House and the Senate (by a filibuster-proof margin) and the Presidency, at the same time. And an amendment is even higher than that.
The Supreme Court should be able to shortcut that by recognizing that the 9th Amendment explicitly forbids a reading of "you don't have this right if James Madison didn't give it to you". When they make that claim, the entire process is cast in doubt.
I would vastly rather see the Congress pass these rights. But when the Congress has cemented a Supreme Court dedicated to ensuring that you gain no rights, and is further willing to use any minority advantage to guarantee that it can't be done by law, then the Constitution really is a suicide pact.
What are 'new' rights? They're not technological.
The Constitution draws its concept of rights from philosophy surrounding natural rights. If you're not using the word in that context you're talking about something else.
The Constitution draws its concept of rights from philosophy surrounding natural rights. If you're not using the word in that context you're talking about something else.
> Democracy, I think, is actually about losing gracefully and without having a revolution, not that you always get your way.
If we actually lived in a true democracy, then, yes, I would agree. But we don't. The US naturally degrades to an undemocratic two-party system, and apportionment gives minority citizens outsized influence. Sometimes it even gives the minority citizens a majority in governance.
> You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases?
Yes, absolutely. The problem is that the lifetime appointments cut both ways. For example, RBG fucked up: instead of doing the smart thing, stepping down years earlier (when she already had plenty of health problems), she was selfish, stayed on the bench, and was replaced by someone with views that would likely disgust her.
A term limit would make things more fair, and would have justices entering and leaving the court at predictable intervals. Of course, term limits would likely require a constitutional amendment, so that will never happen.
I was a fan of another proposal I read a couple years ago: every presidential term gets some fixed number of SCOTUS appointments (say, one or two), and the size of the court varies term-by-term based on who is or isn't retiring. When a justice retires, they aren't replaced. Presidents just get their one or two guaranteed appointments every four years, and that's it.
Of course, you still have the issue of Senate consent; we could certainly have another situation where when the Senate is controlled by a party different from the president's, they stonewall and refuse to confirm. Fixing that would of course require another constitutional amendment, so that wouldn't work. But when appointments aren't "precious", it's probably less likely that would be an issue.
> I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way.
This isn't sudden; people have been talking about SCOTUS reform for many years. It's just that incidents like the current one bring it back into the spotlight.
If we actually lived in a true democracy, then, yes, I would agree. But we don't. The US naturally degrades to an undemocratic two-party system, and apportionment gives minority citizens outsized influence. Sometimes it even gives the minority citizens a majority in governance.
> You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases?
Yes, absolutely. The problem is that the lifetime appointments cut both ways. For example, RBG fucked up: instead of doing the smart thing, stepping down years earlier (when she already had plenty of health problems), she was selfish, stayed on the bench, and was replaced by someone with views that would likely disgust her.
A term limit would make things more fair, and would have justices entering and leaving the court at predictable intervals. Of course, term limits would likely require a constitutional amendment, so that will never happen.
I was a fan of another proposal I read a couple years ago: every presidential term gets some fixed number of SCOTUS appointments (say, one or two), and the size of the court varies term-by-term based on who is or isn't retiring. When a justice retires, they aren't replaced. Presidents just get their one or two guaranteed appointments every four years, and that's it.
Of course, you still have the issue of Senate consent; we could certainly have another situation where when the Senate is controlled by a party different from the president's, they stonewall and refuse to confirm. Fixing that would of course require another constitutional amendment, so that wouldn't work. But when appointments aren't "precious", it's probably less likely that would be an issue.
> I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way.
This isn't sudden; people have been talking about SCOTUS reform for many years. It's just that incidents like the current one bring it back into the spotlight.
It's, barring unforeseen circumstances, a very durable conservative supermajority on the court now. So I think you're going to increasingly see liberals think packing the court is desirable, even knowing it invites counter-packing on the other side, as an alternative to what they've got now. This of course assuming they ever have enough control of Congress to actually do such a thing.
Earlier in history a Court at odds with the other branches basically "blinked" when confronted with the threat of packing, but it's hard to see that happening now. It's obvious that Roberts is concerned with the image of the institution to the degree that it's affected the outcomes of cases before that were likely to be seen as overtly partisan, but there's now a conservative majority even with his exclusion.
Some of the court's outsized power and importance has happened because of Congress's unwillingness and/or inability to act, leading both parties to look to the court for "wins." I think fixing that (itself a tall order) could turn down the temperature a little, but the Supreme Court itself holds a lot of control over whether that can even work, as they're effectively the arbiter of the scope of their own power.
Earlier in history a Court at odds with the other branches basically "blinked" when confronted with the threat of packing, but it's hard to see that happening now. It's obvious that Roberts is concerned with the image of the institution to the degree that it's affected the outcomes of cases before that were likely to be seen as overtly partisan, but there's now a conservative majority even with his exclusion.
Some of the court's outsized power and importance has happened because of Congress's unwillingness and/or inability to act, leading both parties to look to the court for "wins." I think fixing that (itself a tall order) could turn down the temperature a little, but the Supreme Court itself holds a lot of control over whether that can even work, as they're effectively the arbiter of the scope of their own power.
treeman79(1)
jeffbee(1)
rayiner(7)
dukeofdoom(2)
From the Daily Beast:
>Clarence Thomas’ mom is definitely still living in a house bought by a Texas billionaire who bankrolled luxury trips for her Supreme Court justice son, according to a report. On Thursday, ProPublica reported that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow bought two vacant lots and a single-story home in Savannah, Georgia, from Thomas in 2014 and that experts believe Thomas violated a federal law by failing to disclose the sale. Crow also then reportedly spent tens of thousands of dollars on renovations at the home occupied by Leola Williams, Thomas’ mother, but ProPublica couldn’t definitively confirm that Williams was still living in the property after 2020. Later Thursday, Slate reported unequivocally that Williams remains in the house to this day. The outlet said one of its reporters interviewed Williams at the property “two weeks ago” for an upcoming podcast.
This is acceptable conduct? We should just accept this level of venality? Boggles my mind. Where are all the patriots?
[1]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-mom-definitely...